ANITA CHAUDHRY, J. - (1.) Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking his premature release from the jail in the light of Para 2(b) of the Pre -mature Release Policy 12.04.2002. The petitioner is also questioning the legality of rejection order dated 28.02.2014, Annexure P -3, whereby the relief of premature release has been declined.
(2.) The facts, as culled out from the petition, are being noticed first. Petitioner Anil and others were tried in FIR No. 264 dated 24.10.2001, registered under Sections 302, 376(g), 201 and 120 -B, Police Station Sadar, Hansi. On conclusion of the trial, he was held guilty under Section 376(1)(g) IPC and was awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25000/ - vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2003 and 06.12.2003 respectively. The actual period undergone by him is stated to be more than 14 years. The grouse of the petitioner is that despite his undergoing the requisite period as provided under Clause (b) of Para No.2 of the policy dated 12.04.2002, the State Government erred in declining the relief to him by misinterpreting the policy.
(3.) Upon notice, reply has been filed by the State of Haryana. It was admitted that the case of the petitioner was covered by policy dated 12.04.2002. The stand taken was that since the petitioner had not completed 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years' sentence with remissions as prescribed in Clause 2(a)(xii) and (xiv) of the Policy, the State Level Committee had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for pre - mature release.;